![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
hossgal.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
halfamoonThis is going to be moderately spoilerly for all of S1 & S2.
If you've paid any attention to Fandom over the last couple of years, you may have come across the idea that SPN is a misogynistic show where the only purpose of the women characters is fanboy eyecandy.
I don't share this pov. I wouldn't watch the show if I thought all it did with female characters was degrade them.
If you're sold on the negative pov of the show (or sitting firmly in the "I like/love the show despite its ugly treatment of women" camp) then I don't think I'm going to convince you - and that's fine. (People still haven't brought me around to seeing Buffy the Vampire Slayer as all that inspiring, either. Different strokes, you know?)
But if you're still on the edge...let me share with you Seven Ways SPN gets it right.
1. Women are essential in this universe. The central premise of SPN is this: John Winchester's wife was killed, in the heart of his home, in a manner than he was helpless to prevent, and that loss destroyed the life he had known, forever. I do not recall a show that so clearly, through the use of negative space, made it obvious that without women in their lives, the male characters were badly fucked up. The regret and frustration and in-fighting between the Winchesters originates from the lives they lived without Mary. It is baldly stated, over and over again in canon, that all three of the Winchester men would have been better off, if Mary had lived. Her death served to entrap them, not liberate them. Jess's death only underlines the need for female presence.
2. Women can be a threat in this universe. This is apparent in so many ways: physically (through supernatural agency and without it), legally, acting as part of a group (Scarecrow) and alone, as well as emotionally. The boys treat the women they meet with respect - but it's not chivalry, I think - it's an acknowledgment of the potential damage that the women can inflict. Let me say this again - women are not helpless, harmless, nor defenseless in this universe. Both of the boys do operate from a pov where "Winchester" = "baddest mofo in the house" - but this applies to the men they interact with, as well as the women.
IMO, it is a mistake to compare the relative roles of the Winchesters with that of the 'civilian' women they encounter - or with the female demons they fight. The true peers of the Winchesters (in so much as there are any real peers in a show with such a tight focus on two characters) are their fellow hunters. In this aspect as well, there is not as great a difference in relative competence and deadliness as one would expect.
Much is made of the positions of peril that supporting characters find themselves in. Less notice is made of the very effectual danger that female characters can represent. If Sam & Dean ever ran into Buffy in a dark alley, you can bet they wouldn't dismiss her with "But you're just a girl."
3. Women are leaders and protectors in this universe. Very nearly from the start, SPN developed a habit of positioning women in "reverse gender roles" - it is Halley, in Windego, who initiates the search for her lost brother. In Dead in the Water, the first victim is a teenage varsity athlete - a swimmer who, fearlessly, goes out into the lake alone. Her bother, on the other hand, is in the house, in the midst of preparing supper when he is attacked. In Asylum, it is Kat, not her boyfriend, who takes the firearm, uses it competently, and prepares to assist the Winchesters in their defense. This continues throughout the majority of S1 & S2, and in those eps of S3 that I have seen.
Thematically, SPN positions family as extremely important - and the episodes re-emphasize, over and over again, the central role of women as leaders and protectors of that essential social structure.
4. We're talking women here, too, not just girls. SPN is a CW show, and it has the expected number of bare arms and heaving bosoms. (And yes, the boys are frequently in layers, but its not like that's stopped the drooling of fangirls.) But. As often as not, the key women in each ep are adults, not teenagers. This expectation of maturity and adult motivations is a refreshing change from the hormone-laden atmosphere of teenie-bopper shows such as Buffy. Even in larger ensemble shows (like Firefly) the guest stars were more likely to be younger rather than older.
Furthermore - these older women are as much a threat as the sweet young things - if not more so. (See Faith, among several others.) Which brings me to:
5. SPN has women who use their brains and their hearts more than their tits. In SPN, casual use of sexuality is shown in a negative fashion - it is an indulgence of Dean, and a sign of his (on-going) immaturity, it is one of the preferred tools of demons, and repeatedly, the show shows lust as a means of distraction and/or abuse, rather than as a meaningless whim. While I know that this is frequently used as a sign of the show's negative portrayal of women, I see it differently. When women succeed in rescuing themselves and defeating the supernatural threat, it is through their intelligence, courage, and stubbornness, more than their ability to bat their eyes and shake their tits at the boys. This is particularly true of the older women, but also of the younger ones - important female characters are attractive as a side issue, while it is trivial (or evil) characters who use their sexuality.
As a woman who wants attention for her intelligence and moral character, rather than her looks, this is important to me.
6. SPN's male characters respect women. I touched on this before, but it bears repeating. Dean (and to a lesser extent Sam) try to con nearly everyone they meet. Dean tries to sleep with nearly any woman who would have him (unless he thought that would entail an emotional commitment.) But when Dean, under a spell, imagines a perfect life for himself, he pictures not a stay-at-home girl to fix him supper, but a professional (a nurse) who (politely but firmly) rejects his sexual advances in order to go to work. In the same way, the one woman whom Dean attempted to settle down with was the one to break off the relationship. When faced with either Missouri Mosley or Ellen Harvelle, both boys "play second fiddle" and obey the older women's direction. Dean is far from a gentleman, but he does not internalize a world where women are at his beck and call.
7. The heroic women of SPN aren't supernatural. This is one where not everyone is going to agree with me: I prefer Batman to Superman - the self-re-made mortal over the invincible uber-man. In the same way, I tend to prefer ordinary people who do extra-ordinary things, over "elite" types who have an innate advantage.
The tough women and girls of SPN aren't "chosen ones", they don't have superpowers, they aren't armed with mystic swords. They're nearly all drop-dead beautiful (at least the twenty-somethings are, according to my brother) but look at the male leads! The world is not full of men as handsome as Jensen Ackles. (Trust me, I would have noticed this.)
But despite the looks, the women of SPN are ordinary. They do amazing things on their own.
Finally - before I close: don't take me as saying that SPN is perfect, or that the issues other fans have brought up are completely without merit. The show's writing is clunky, they never drop an anvil when they can throw five, and this *is* a CW show, where cleavage and legs are expected. And while every fandom in the history of squeeing fangirls has had its share of sketchy fixations and blatant misogynistic attitudes amongst the fans, SPN fandom (to my eyes) has more than its share. And I am enough of an advocate of writer's responsibility that I can't dismiss the idea that there is something in the show canon that encourages that attitude amongst fans.
But I think that meta on the show frequently overstates the degree of "female oppression", and I am saddened every time I see a response to such meta along the lines of "I've never seen the show but I know I would hate it from what you said."
SPN has hot boys who love women, and tough, complex gals who take up a lot of space in this universe. Don't let the bad press stop you from giving it a try.
If you've paid any attention to Fandom over the last couple of years, you may have come across the idea that SPN is a misogynistic show where the only purpose of the women characters is fanboy eyecandy.
I don't share this pov. I wouldn't watch the show if I thought all it did with female characters was degrade them.
If you're sold on the negative pov of the show (or sitting firmly in the "I like/love the show despite its ugly treatment of women" camp) then I don't think I'm going to convince you - and that's fine. (People still haven't brought me around to seeing Buffy the Vampire Slayer as all that inspiring, either. Different strokes, you know?)
But if you're still on the edge...let me share with you Seven Ways SPN gets it right.
1. Women are essential in this universe. The central premise of SPN is this: John Winchester's wife was killed, in the heart of his home, in a manner than he was helpless to prevent, and that loss destroyed the life he had known, forever. I do not recall a show that so clearly, through the use of negative space, made it obvious that without women in their lives, the male characters were badly fucked up. The regret and frustration and in-fighting between the Winchesters originates from the lives they lived without Mary. It is baldly stated, over and over again in canon, that all three of the Winchester men would have been better off, if Mary had lived. Her death served to entrap them, not liberate them. Jess's death only underlines the need for female presence.
2. Women can be a threat in this universe. This is apparent in so many ways: physically (through supernatural agency and without it), legally, acting as part of a group (Scarecrow) and alone, as well as emotionally. The boys treat the women they meet with respect - but it's not chivalry, I think - it's an acknowledgment of the potential damage that the women can inflict. Let me say this again - women are not helpless, harmless, nor defenseless in this universe. Both of the boys do operate from a pov where "Winchester" = "baddest mofo in the house" - but this applies to the men they interact with, as well as the women.
IMO, it is a mistake to compare the relative roles of the Winchesters with that of the 'civilian' women they encounter - or with the female demons they fight. The true peers of the Winchesters (in so much as there are any real peers in a show with such a tight focus on two characters) are their fellow hunters. In this aspect as well, there is not as great a difference in relative competence and deadliness as one would expect.
Much is made of the positions of peril that supporting characters find themselves in. Less notice is made of the very effectual danger that female characters can represent. If Sam & Dean ever ran into Buffy in a dark alley, you can bet they wouldn't dismiss her with "But you're just a girl."
3. Women are leaders and protectors in this universe. Very nearly from the start, SPN developed a habit of positioning women in "reverse gender roles" - it is Halley, in Windego, who initiates the search for her lost brother. In Dead in the Water, the first victim is a teenage varsity athlete - a swimmer who, fearlessly, goes out into the lake alone. Her bother, on the other hand, is in the house, in the midst of preparing supper when he is attacked. In Asylum, it is Kat, not her boyfriend, who takes the firearm, uses it competently, and prepares to assist the Winchesters in their defense. This continues throughout the majority of S1 & S2, and in those eps of S3 that I have seen.
Thematically, SPN positions family as extremely important - and the episodes re-emphasize, over and over again, the central role of women as leaders and protectors of that essential social structure.
4. We're talking women here, too, not just girls. SPN is a CW show, and it has the expected number of bare arms and heaving bosoms. (And yes, the boys are frequently in layers, but its not like that's stopped the drooling of fangirls.) But. As often as not, the key women in each ep are adults, not teenagers. This expectation of maturity and adult motivations is a refreshing change from the hormone-laden atmosphere of teenie-bopper shows such as Buffy. Even in larger ensemble shows (like Firefly) the guest stars were more likely to be younger rather than older.
Furthermore - these older women are as much a threat as the sweet young things - if not more so. (See Faith, among several others.) Which brings me to:
5. SPN has women who use their brains and their hearts more than their tits. In SPN, casual use of sexuality is shown in a negative fashion - it is an indulgence of Dean, and a sign of his (on-going) immaturity, it is one of the preferred tools of demons, and repeatedly, the show shows lust as a means of distraction and/or abuse, rather than as a meaningless whim. While I know that this is frequently used as a sign of the show's negative portrayal of women, I see it differently. When women succeed in rescuing themselves and defeating the supernatural threat, it is through their intelligence, courage, and stubbornness, more than their ability to bat their eyes and shake their tits at the boys. This is particularly true of the older women, but also of the younger ones - important female characters are attractive as a side issue, while it is trivial (or evil) characters who use their sexuality.
As a woman who wants attention for her intelligence and moral character, rather than her looks, this is important to me.
6. SPN's male characters respect women. I touched on this before, but it bears repeating. Dean (and to a lesser extent Sam) try to con nearly everyone they meet. Dean tries to sleep with nearly any woman who would have him (unless he thought that would entail an emotional commitment.) But when Dean, under a spell, imagines a perfect life for himself, he pictures not a stay-at-home girl to fix him supper, but a professional (a nurse) who (politely but firmly) rejects his sexual advances in order to go to work. In the same way, the one woman whom Dean attempted to settle down with was the one to break off the relationship. When faced with either Missouri Mosley or Ellen Harvelle, both boys "play second fiddle" and obey the older women's direction. Dean is far from a gentleman, but he does not internalize a world where women are at his beck and call.
7. The heroic women of SPN aren't supernatural. This is one where not everyone is going to agree with me: I prefer Batman to Superman - the self-re-made mortal over the invincible uber-man. In the same way, I tend to prefer ordinary people who do extra-ordinary things, over "elite" types who have an innate advantage.
The tough women and girls of SPN aren't "chosen ones", they don't have superpowers, they aren't armed with mystic swords. They're nearly all drop-dead beautiful (at least the twenty-somethings are, according to my brother) but look at the male leads! The world is not full of men as handsome as Jensen Ackles. (Trust me, I would have noticed this.)
But despite the looks, the women of SPN are ordinary. They do amazing things on their own.
Finally - before I close: don't take me as saying that SPN is perfect, or that the issues other fans have brought up are completely without merit. The show's writing is clunky, they never drop an anvil when they can throw five, and this *is* a CW show, where cleavage and legs are expected. And while every fandom in the history of squeeing fangirls has had its share of sketchy fixations and blatant misogynistic attitudes amongst the fans, SPN fandom (to my eyes) has more than its share. And I am enough of an advocate of writer's responsibility that I can't dismiss the idea that there is something in the show canon that encourages that attitude amongst fans.
But I think that meta on the show frequently overstates the degree of "female oppression", and I am saddened every time I see a response to such meta along the lines of "I've never seen the show but I know I would hate it from what you said."
SPN has hot boys who love women, and tough, complex gals who take up a lot of space in this universe. Don't let the bad press stop you from giving it a try.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-15 12:35 am (UTC)For starters, point #1. I do think that the absence of women as a counterbalance in the SPN verse seems to lead to male dysfunction. For example, Jo and Ellen seem to be better off than the Winchesters even though they suffered a similar loss. However Bobby seems to have suffered something pretty horrific and even he views the Winchesters as a mess (one of the thing that really irks me about the last episode is that I wish we could have found out a bit more about why Bobby happens to have such a soft spot for them). The problem with the family seems to have a lot more to do with John's reaction to Mary's loss and bad decision making thereafter than because an absence of women in general is a statement in the SPNverse. Perhaps if we'd seen more female hunters besides Tamara and Ellen (who I'm not sure really qualifies) it would be easier to parse lifestyle versus female influence. But I do think your point that family fragmentation is the real crisis issue is well taken.
If Sam & Dean ever ran into Buffy in a dark alley, you can bet they wouldn't dismiss her with "But you're just a girl." Nicely said, and I wouldn't argue with points 2, 4, or 5. Nearly everyone on TV is unrealistically young and good looking and given their lifestyle and upbringing neither Sam nor Dean should look anything like the way they do.
I have more to quibble with in points 3 and 7 (which I'll tie together) and 6. One thing I gathered from your post is that you see no difference in approach among the 3 seasons. I came in during S2, went back and watched S1 and have been caught up since the S2 finale. So S3 is the first I'm watching with the full back story behind me. And I'm finding a rather startling difference in various things in S3.
For example, I just rewatched "Wendigo" today and was really struck my a number of elements. I'll stick to the issue of Haley though who, given how little we knew about her, still had some clear characteristics. She was intelligent and open-minded, family oriented, decisive, and brave. And, of course, perfectly ordinary. Even though she was protected by Sam and Dean, this was due to her being untrained in what they knew, not for any lack on her part. And she could handle Dean just fine, with some humor and a light touch. I also agree that there were quite a few other women in S1 who needed help but weren't any the less admirable for it, most responding with quite remarkable resilience.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-15 12:37 am (UTC)Lastly, there's point #6, and to me this is the heart of the problem. I think the question here is the difference between women (individuals) and the feminine. Because Sam and Dean certainly do respect various women and dislike and disrespect others. However I think there's been a growing and consistently negative view of all things female from the show, whether that's been expressed in derision, trivialization, or a one-sidedness in how things are presented. And it may simply be bad timing, but the fact that our two female regulars (who are replacing the more positive ones we had last season) are both rather lacking in redeeming characteristics is not helping.
Next rock
Date: 2008-02-16 02:10 am (UTC)I don't understand the contradiction. Could you explain more what you mean, please?
that in order to make anyone (Bobby for example) have an equivalent role to play in the hunting world, the Winchesters seem to have to lose competence and intelligence (this is one of the other things I noticed in Wendigo -- Sam and Dean's planning and knowledge there is startlingly different than the haphazard work they've been doing lately).
I am totally not disagreeing with you on this - and while I think the writers do some awesome things, I've also been headdesking over the clunkiness and occasional rilly rilly dumb lines since, oh, the pilot. So you won't get me to disagree that the writers are short changing the characters. But - as you say - the writers make Sam and Dean look dumb. Not the (female) opponents. I don't understand how this translates (for some fans) into "the writers don't like or respect women."
However I think there's been a growing and consistently negative view of all things female from the show, whether that's been expressed in derision, trivialization, or a one-sidedness in how things are presented.
Has it always been there? Yes. Is it annoying and off-putting? Yes. Is it greater this season than previously? I can't say right now - still not caught up. (But I will point out that "Women's Work" was made before S3 started, and that the pov that SPN is sexist crap has been out there for as long as I've been in the fandom (post S1).) And obviously, people's reactions to the same text are going to vary. (For instance, I don't recall anyone else having the (non-gender-related) issues with "Tall Tales" that I did.)
It's interesting that what is for you 'the heart of the problem' is one that doesn't register that significantly for me. Interesting, and frustrating - because I can't (and won't!) say "well, you're just imagining things!" because the issue is there and real for you. At the same time, I'm not feeling a...pull? a motivation? to let you convince me of your pov. (I so hope that came out properly...)
It is possible that I will be more sympathetic, once I've completely caught up on S3. (You will understand when I say I *hope* not to be - that the show does not give me cause to think less well of it...)
At any rate - thank you for your thoughts!
- hg
no subject
Date: 2008-02-16 01:01 am (UTC)The problem with the family seems to have a lot more to do with John's reaction to Mary's loss and bad decision making thereafter than because an absence of women in general is a statement in the SPNverse. Perhaps if we'd seen more female hunters besides Tamara and Ellen (who I'm not sure really qualifies) it would be easier to parse lifestyle versus female influence.
Eh. On the one hand, yes, I can see the pov that the Winchester problem is a John Winchester problem, and not a no-women problem. (Even though I'm solidly in the pro-John camp, I have no problems with identifying him at the root of a lot of the boy's problems.)
On the other hand...we have Missouri, who is (imo) more socialized and well-adjusted than Bobby. (If not as well loved, alas.) And we have Gordon Walker, who - as a loner, having lost his sister and been cast out by his family - is about as messed up as John Winchester. So I'm going to stick with the idea that "no women = messed up guys" is a valid SPN theme.
Nearly everyone on TV is unrealistically young and good looking and given their lifestyle and upbringing neither Sam nor Dean should look anything like the way they do.
Did you see
(Continued on next rock.)
- hg
no subject
Date: 2008-02-16 04:20 am (UTC)Yeah, but Missouri, like Ellen, isn't actually a hunter. She's part of the world, but (as far as we can tell, which, is also part of what makes this difficult to parse out) leads a much more stable, regular life. We also saw Pastor Jim who seemed to be one of those border people, assisting hunters while not necessarily going out and hunting himself (again, we just don't know). I think the most telling thing is that Sam and Dean know so little about people like Bobby, who so far is the closest friend they have, and the network of hunters and places like the Roadhouse were unknown to them before S2. I think it speaks a lot to how different their experience is, even among hunters.
Did you see [info]veejane's great set of posts on that subject?
I did! It was a great series of posts and I think outlined any number of inconsistencies/eyerolling things the show put forth that just wouldn't work that way. Since then we've had yet another flashback suggestting the boys survived largely on junk food. As Yoda might say, "How you get so big eating food like this?"
I don't understand the contradiction. Could you explain more what you mean, please?
Yes, "contradicts" was a poorly chosen term. I guess I meant that no one except the villains have had supernatural powers, unless we count Ava and Andy and Ava couldn't be counted heroic at the end. So the women are no different than Sam and Dean in that, but at the same time I'm not clear which women could really be called leaders. Sometimes not even Sam or Dean are all that leaderly (though they're usually in some sort of protective mode). This may all be a matter of semantics however, as I would agree that Sam and Dean and the show in general does not suggest women can not be equal partners in terms of action or planning, or don't take initiative in things that are in their area of expertise.
I don't understand how this translates (for some fans) into "the writers don't like or respect women."
I don't either. I think it may, however, translate into "We don't know how to make women appear awesome without dumbing down men" which some could assume implies that the only reason women appear competent, smart, etc. is because men are too busy being mesmerized by them, feeling awkward around them, or may possibly be on drugs :D In this instance though I think that it's just writer incompetence, and it also overlooks how often Bobby calls the boys dumb, which no one seems to mind nearly as much as when Bela does it. So methinks part of this problem is in the mindset of the beholder.
It's interesting that what is for you 'the heart of the problem' is one that doesn't register that significantly for me
Yes, exactly the problem I mentioned in my first sentence. I sometimes think that the reasons people like anything tend to be much more similar, and the reasons they dislike something much more varied. It's the same with reading fanfic -- people can be turned off of a story for many, many different small reasons which may not be shared by almost anyone else.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-16 05:12 am (UTC)Ah - you were getting at something different than I was thinking - thank you for clarifying.
So methinks part of this problem is in the mindset of the beholder.
*nods* Could be. However (to play both sides against the middle) I think it's fair to question the writer's intent or competence when a large group of the readers/viewers come up with the same (or similar) negative reactions.
I sometimes think that the reasons people like anything tend to be much more similar, and the reasons they dislike something much more varied.
"All happy families are alike, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
Again, thanks for your thoughts.
- hg